Star Wars or Star Trek ? Which would you recommend and why?

[Ivanstone]

Star Wars is "dumb nonsense" and Star Trek is "smart and intelligent",

That's why I always say it just stimulates different areas of the brain. The brain's bigly and needs some variety. If I had to pick a side I would go for Star Trek just because I think its more important to be optimistic about the future rather than being nostalgic about past victories like Star Wars.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

Star Trek has always been hand-waving exposition and vapid plots. Always. From TOS through TNG and beyond. Why can various alien species interbreed, to make half-breeds like Spock? Fuck you, don't think about it. How does warp drive work? Magical crystals, fuck you. All the alien species have a "hat" because complexity is for suckers. Etc.

That's true. I think the context is really more of what makes me hate the new stuff where even it compared to the old ST tropes feels like a watered down experience. It's not exciting, engaging or fun for me and it almost deliberately tarnishes and omits information to hammer out a hollowed out action experience which I not only find unappealing but I firmly believe that whatever is left of Roddenbury's ashes are rolling in orbit.

That's not to say I don't like action in my Star Trek either since I do like DS9 but there needs to be more than just extra dumbed down Kurtzman plot along the way in order to feel like a build up and a proper payoff. As Harry Kim said "Maybe it's not the destination which matters. Maybe it's the journey."

[ParanoiD84]

Star Trek imo I used to enjoy star wars but that was a while ago.

Stargate is also great.

[The Butt Witch]

Depends on your style.

Do you want a space western with fantasy elements OR a space communist utopia with space orcs and space elves?

Personally, I prefer the former because, putting the Force aside, the universe actually makes sense.

[VinceVega]

Someone who’s never watched em is thinking of giving them a try. They don’t have time for both because there is so much stuff especially when you count all the series.

You are told to pick one or recommend one. Which would you? Or how would you advise them of the two so they instead can make an informed choice?

Both have a lot of buzz and both are active again, described as the two biggest names in sci fi tv/movies. This has garnered the interest.

Star Wars. Definetly. Story is mostly in movies and does not need a massive commitend timewise. Also the universe is... better fleshed out in my opinion. Star Trek has some really cringy stuff. Like Klingons for example.

Star Trek is... special. Discovery is probably better for newcomers to follow or tolerate as the old STar Trek shows are a bit weird by modern standarts. Also if you like Discovery do NOT tell that anyone who is a so called "star Trek Fan". They will rip you a new one and call you SJW.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Star Trek if you like Sci Fi and Star Wars if you like Fantasy.

[Redwyrm]

While I have been disappointed by both Star Wars and Star Trek over the years (they do have their bright spots)

I have never regretted watching Babylon 5. Stick it out through the first season as they are getting their footing. But Seasons 2, 3 & 4 are some of the best sci-fi writing to date.

But if I had to choose between Wars/Trek I would go Trek.

[The Butt Witch]

Star Trek if you like Sci Fi and Star Wars if you like Fantasy.

Because Q and the Bajoran Prophets and what not are so based on science.

[loras]

Someone who’s never watched em is thinking of giving them a try. They don’t have time for both because there is so much stuff especially when you count all the series.

You are told to pick one or recommend one. Which would you? Or how would you advise them of the two so they instead can make an informed choice?

Both have a lot of buzz and both are active again, described as the two biggest names in sci fi tv/movies. This has garnered the interest.

Star Wars is space fantasy, star trek is sci-fi, neither is particularly impressing if the supposed "high tech" prerense bullshit doesn't impress you.

I'd avoid both or try both if i were you, you'll know quick enough whether it's for you or not.

Start at the older main series, the stuff that made them popular in the first place.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Because Q and the Bajoran Prophets and what not are so based on science.

Yes, if you actually watched and could follow the series.

[The Butt Witch]

Yes, if you actually watched and could follow the series.

Yes, I guess any fantasy nonsense can be explained with science if you really try to.

[Egomaniac]

Someone who’s never watched em is thinking of giving them a try. They don’t have time for both because there is so much stuff especially when you count all the series.

You are told to pick one or recommend one. Which would you? Or how would you advise them of the two so they instead can make an informed choice?

Both have a lot of buzz and both are active again, described as the two biggest names in sci fi tv/movies. This has garnered the interest.

Don't watch all of either Franchise.

but if Time is the pressing concern...Watching all of Star wars is much faster than watching all of Star Trek

But, honestly, I'd probably just tell them to watch Babylon 5 instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Because Q and the Bajoran Prophets and what not are so based on science.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”

-Arthur C. Clarke

Both the Q and the entities the Bajorans refer to as Prophets are just highly evolved species... but to regular mortals they would seem like Gods.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes, I guess any fantasy nonsense can be explained with science if you really try to.

Again your ignorance is proof you never followed the series, the Q are not magic nor are they everything they appear to be to humans, the same as with Bajoran Prophets it's a matter of perspective in technology.

You would probably have known that had you followed the series and paid attention instead of sputtering out of your ass nonsense when you typically have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

[Endus]

Again your ignorance is proof you never followed the series, the Q are not magic nor are they everything they appear to be to humans, the same as with Bajoran Prophets it's a matter of perspective in technology.

You would probably have known that had you followed the series and paid attention instead of sputtering out of your ass nonsense when you typically have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

The problem is that Star Trek doesn't start from science, with anything. They use that Asimov quote as a shield. They'll make up magical stuff and then hand-wave any accusations of bullshit with "it's technology, somehow, it's just so wildly advanced".

It's particularly silly when most magic systems are exactly the same thing. Take Harry Potter's world; magic exists. It can be controlled or manipulated by those with the biological knack for it. There are rules and principles by which it operates, which is why spells have to be uttered in specific ways and the effort practiced. There's nothing essentially "non-science" about any of it. Does that magic actually exist? Of course not. Neither do the Q or the Bajoran Prophets. But Harry Potter's world has set out more rules for their "magic" than Star Trek does for its forms of magic. It's more "scientific" than Trek, in this.

But nobody would call Harry Potter "science fiction", because of how silly the explanations are. Star Trek's explanations aren't better. They aren't better than Star Wars' explanations of The Force. It's all the same kind of magical nonsense.

The big difference between Trek and Wars isn't that one is "more sciencey" than the other. They're both magical and silly, for science fiction. The difference is largely in whether the stories are meant as simple morality plays or as adventure stories. Trek's the former, Wars the latter. I think this is what's really rubbed people the most wrong about ST: Discovery and ST: Picard; they're primarily adventure stories, with a moral message, rather than morality plays with a bit of adventure.

[Thokri]

Both have been ruined but there are bits and pieces of both that can be worth.

Star trek, NG and DS9. Voyager has some good moments but also really bad ones. I personaly would skip all movies.

SW, mandalorian and weirdly clone wars. Stay away from new movies. They make you want to murder director/writers.


The orville is decent.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The problem is that Star Trek doesn't start from science, with anything. They use that Asimov quote as a shield. They'll make up magical stuff and then hand-wave any accusations of bullshit with "it's technology, somehow, it's just so wildly advanced".

It's particularly silly when most magic systems are exactly the same thing. Take Harry Potter's world; magic exists. It can be controlled or manipulated by those with the biological knack for it. There are rules and principles by which it operates, which is why spells have to be uttered in specific ways and the effort practiced. There's nothing essentially "non-science" about any of it. Does that magic actually exist? Of course not. Neither do the Q or the Bajoran Prophets. But Harry Potter's world has set out more rules for their "magic" than Star Trek does for its forms of magic. It's more "scientific" than Trek, in this.

But nobody would call Harry Potter "science fiction", because of how silly the explanations are. Star Trek's explanations aren't better. They aren't better than Star Wars' explanations of The Force. It's all the same kind of magical nonsense.

The big difference between Trek and Wars isn't that one is "more sciencey" than the other. They're both magical and silly, for science fiction. The difference is largely in whether the stories are meant as simple morality plays or as adventure stories. Trek's the former, Wars the latter. I think this is what's really rubbed people the most wrong about ST: Discovery and ST: Picard; they're primarily adventure stories, with a moral message, rather than morality plays with a bit of adventure.

Star Trek does start from science in fact is specifically starts from science because that's the entire pitch. Or at at least it was when Roddenberry wrote it. It was basically supposed to be a a sort of western in space.

Only it was specifically the technology that would be the vehicle.


The difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that they are both fiction however one relies on technology being the main part of the story arch. As for Harry Potter I am not sure where the fuck you are going with that.

Star Wars on the other hand has recently implemented the science portion of the story arch, but Star Wars was never about technology, or scientific theoretical concepts.


Nobody when writing or conceptualizing Star Wars really gave a shit where The Force came from, or how a single fighter ship can fire into the reactor of a Death Star and blow it up.

[Endus]

Star Trek does start from science in fact is specifically starts from science because that's the entire pitch. Or at at least it was when Roddenberry wrote it. It was basically supposed to be a a sort of western in space.

Only it was specifically the technology that would be the vehicle.

Science fiction is not automatically rooted in actual science or technology. That's the realm of hard sci fi. Star Trek was never hard science fiction. It's entirely about social issues. The science is just hand-wavey framing for the morality plays, just as much as the magic in any fantasy story.

There's nothing about Star Trek's technology that was rooted in science. They created the idea of transporters because it was cheaper for production than trying to film shuttle landing sequences. Warp Drive is both poorly explained and it was so inconsistently written they had to write in an explanation for why warp factors changed, retroactively.

The difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that they are both fiction however one relies on technology being the main part of the story arch. As for Harry Potter I am not sure where the fuck you are going with that.

Star Wars on the other hand has recently implemented the science portion of the story arch, but Star Wars was never about technology, or scientific theoretical concepts.

Dude, neither is Star Trek.

Warp Drive, in Trek, works because magical crystals somehow make a bubble of Ignore Physics around the ship and flick it across the galaxy because don't think about it. If you're gonna tell me it's meant to be an Alcubierre drive (the "real" warp drive, in terms of actual science), I'll point out it has zero relation, in any sense. An Alcubierre drive doesn't create a "warp bubble", doesn't accelerate to lightspeed instantly, etc.

Nobody when writing or conceptualizing Star Wars really gave a shit where The Force came from, or how a single fighter ship can fire into the reactor of a Death Star and blow it up.

And nobody in Star Trek really gave a shit why Vulcans have telepathic powers that can do basically whatever the story requires. Sticking entirely to something from TOS specifically, which was used across multiple episodes, without a whole lot of consistency in how it functioned nor while setting much in the way of limits.

I'm also not sure why shooting an explosive device into a reactor causing a big explosion is someone "unscientific". That's not one of the questionable wacky things Star Wars expects you to swallow.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Science fiction is not automatically rooted in actual science or technology. That's the realm of hard sci fi. Star Trek was never hard science fiction. It's entirely about social issues. The science is just hand-wavey framing for the morality plays, just as much as the magic in any fantasy story.

There's nothing about Star Trek's technology that was rooted in science. They created the idea of transporters because it was cheaper for production than trying to film shuttle landing sequences. Warp Drive is both poorly explained and it was so inconsistently written they had to write in an explanation for why warp factors changed, retroactively.



Dude, neither is Star Trek.

Warp Drive, in Trek, works because magical crystals somehow make a bubble of Ignore Physics around the ship and flick it across the galaxy because don't think about it. If you're gonna tell me it's meant to be an Alcubierre drive (the "real" warp drive, in terms of actual science), I'll point out it has zero relation, in any sense. An Alcubierre drive doesn't create a "warp bubble", doesn't accelerate to lightspeed instantly, etc.



And nobody in Star Trek really gave a shit why Vulcans have telepathic powers that can do basically whatever the story requires. Sticking entirely to something from TOS specifically, which was used across multiple episodes, without a whole lot of consistency in how it functioned nor while setting much in the way of limits.

I'm also not sure why shooting an explosive device into a reactor causing a big explosion is someone "unscientific". That's not one of the questionable wacky things Star Wars expects you to swallow.

Star Trek is pretty hard Science, I think where you might be getting confused is that YES it's fiction, however much of that fiction say in The Original Series has actually become reality. Irregardless to that being the point of Star Trek the technology is a vehicle as I said, yes a concept, a silly Star Ship floated around a sound stage on fishing wire.

It was about the ideas and yes, social implications certainly became a motif of the series, however the basic layout was that is was a Western in Space, Captain Kirk flying to the rescue to lay down the smack on bad guys in order to save some damsel in distress every week on behalf of Kirk.


Look I am not saying it was sophisticated, or hell even good or less then pathetic half the time looking back, but it for sure was always about science



As for Star Wars yes, Star Trek dealt with Warp Drives and Magic Crystals as you refer to them but again some of the ideas around the series have lead to real technology.


But do you really think somebody somewhere is really learning to use the god damn force to move a mountain on someones head because they happened to get into a political dispute?


Come ON!

Star Wars didn't become much about any technology until after the Original Films and Hell it didn't even have a social element to it either.




Star Wars was a fantasy tale like The Never Ending Story basically about a young man coming into his own, and learning about what it means to make choices, and what those choices eventually lead to.

Selfishness and your power is ultimately used for evil no matter what you do. Life selflessly use that power for good then you are a force for good.



Oh Sorry yeah and about your comment concerning Vulcans yeah they don't have magic powers either, however bringing Spock back from the dead I really can't argue a good or scientific reason for that. That was pure horseshit.

[Endus]

Star Trek is pretty hard Science, I think where you might be getting confused is that YES it's fiction, however much of that fiction say in The Original Series has actually become reality. Irregardless to that being the point of Star Trek the technology is a vehicle as I said, yes a concept, a silly Star Ship floated around a sound stage on fishing wire.

Dude, no.

Hard science fiction is fundamentally rooted in the science, and takes great pains to not imagine up anything without a strong basis in theoretical science.

Trek does not come close to fitting that bill.

Shows that are more "hard science fiction" would be shows like The Expanse. Even Firefly, though it's a bit more of a stretch, since they really don't focus on the science aspects; everything just works by what we know of physics (communication, no FTL, realistic weapons, etc).

Oh Sorry yeah and about your comment concerning Vulcans yeah they don't have magic powers either, however bringing Spock back from the dead I really can't argue a good or scientific reason for that. That was pure horseshit.

Vulcans have telepathy. That's a magic power. They can read minds, communicate, rewrite memories, even embed their "soul" inside other people. And this is just me sticking to the original cast from TOS; they've expanded on that suite of magic over the years.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Dude, no.

Hard science fiction is fundamentally rooted in the science, and takes great pains to not imagine up anything without a strong basis in theoretical science.

Trek does not come close to fitting that bill.

Vulcans have telepathy. That's a magic power. They can read minds, communicate, rewrite memories, even embed their "soul" inside other people. And this is just me sticking to the original cast from TOS; they've expanded on that suite of magic over the years.

Hard Science, are you forgetting this entire genre is Science FICTION correct. And Star Trek took a lot more pains when it came to science than Star Wars ever has. As for Vulcan telepathy. Not to rip you off or anything but it simply could be a means of technology or development as humans we don't have.


However if you are going to talk shit about Vulcans being able to mind meld, how the fuck can you or anybody suggest a movie series about people with the ability to emit electricity from their fucking fingers, or wheeled a light saber.

I'll grant you points on the Vulcan shit, but outside of everything else that is very minor in comparison to Star Wars or FFS Harry Potter.


Saying Star Trek is Science Fiction while Saying Star Wars is Fantasy isn't a slight, it's just an accurate statement.



If Star Trek isn't as hard of Science "FICTION" you get you want to give me a better example